How is rank about academics and not just a popularity contest?

Call me cynical, but I just cannot overlook the irony of a Knight explaining how matters of vigilance, self-awareness, and humility are important topics often touched upon among his peers, right before a Master carries on passive-aggressively making cheap personal shots? Call me wicked, too, for feeling an odd sense of satisfaction from the sheer absurdity of it.
Speaking of feelings about things unreachable... like the undisclosed thoughts and motivations of one's challengers, say... I remember a man of questionable wisdom once tell me that things are generally worth as much as you payed to acquire them. Something given out for free is as worthless for that reason. One might respect rank as a recognition from one's peers, but rank one gives to oneself surely cannot mean anything, can it? What standard has one met before doing so? What standard is one expected to meet after? Also, what is not forgiven to those in a position of unlimited might?

We're not in the abrahamic forum but I believe God's unlimited might does not require forgiveness, but instead requires worship from those he created, and may get angry at those who interfere with his plan and send them to hell until the end of times and beyond.

I'm not a specialist in 'unlimited might' as I do not believe it exists, and if it did, I would believe it to be the Force.

Proteus wrote:

and it is taught that the only path to enlightenment is through a Knight or path to redemption is through clergy. Of course these are my own thoughts.

Yes, they are. Enlightenment not only is a very loaded, overused, abused and misunderstood term, that I feel here is simply thrown into your response as a tool for an exaggerated and over-simplified idea, but everything we share here in not only discussions but in sermons, the IP, and apprentice lessons are is that any such thing is gained only through the self and the experience of the self. TM's, or Clergy people, whether a knight or not do not claim to be the gatekeepers of any of this knowledge. They are those who expose others to what knowledge and wisdom there already is, but through a system of guidance of helping others digest it, because this kind of knowledge and wisdom is usually not a simple cut-and-dry kind of thing to integrate on one's own. This is why the "mentor" role in mythology exists in human psychology in the first place. The structure of learning here means to follow that reality.

In any case, the mission of knighthood is to teach exactly what you are on about here, that someone must learn to be their own person and take their own lead. It is most naturally people who are leaders of and/or in their own lives who are best able to help others understand what that means.

You cautioning is definitely useful. But it is not something that only you have done here. It is frequently discussed in many forms with those who go through the ranks, which is why most knights agree to approach their path with humility, in light of that very caution.

I agree with you on many of your points. However, wisdom is not something taught and it cannot be given to another. This simple implication that those of rank automatically have this power is what I challenge. All the meditation and lessons in the world will not impart this wisdom either. This very idea that you follow a specific process in the IP and AP under a "mentor" and then earn a badge from others that self appointed themselves as actually worthy of bestowing this honor is what I challenge. These individuals claim to be the gatekeepers of this wisdom by the very fact that they have bestowed upon themselves these high ranks and then require others to go through them to attain similar. So I ask you, why is a mentor required if this is not the case? Its one thing to learn from another because you find yourselves connected in some way, its quite another to be forced to build such an association artificially just so you can advance. That is why they are gatekeepers.

If it is the mission of a knight to teach, I must ask, why have you not acquiesced to my earlier request? Is it because you don't like me? Thus you feel I'm not worthy of your teaching and so you withhold that teaching? I asked directly, you declined to provide answers through your silence on the matter. I'm not saying you should be required to provide anything, however don't make the claim that you have knowledge and then deny that knowledge to those you made the claim to. It only serves to make you look weak.

I understand these things get frequently discussed. I believe they definitely should be as a continual reminder to others as to the most valid pursuit of their journeys. In the end it is not the knowledge we seek. That is only a precursor to the true goal. we want the ability to apply that knowledge through wisdom. That only comes by combining it with experience, not a shiny badge. Badges do not make one great, the ability to act wisely does. Its good to keep in mind that we are each responsible for our own lives in every aspect and to be careful to never allow that responsibility to fall to another. That creates victim hood. We each must walk into any Heroes Journey with eyes wide open, carefully selecting who we choose to associate with, always being wary of false gods behind the scenes spreading sour grapes of un-knightly wrath.

ren wrote: We're not in the abrahamic forum but I believe God's unlimited might does not require forgiveness, but instead requires worship from those he created, and may get angry at those who interfere with his plan and send them to hell until the end of times and beyond.

I'm not a specialist in 'unlimited might' as I do not believe it exists, and if it did, I would believe it to be the Force.

I'm guessing this little quip here is attempting to deflect from the original question of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Br. John might actually have a point, only Kyrin knows. But trying to reduce a conversation to an accusation of "you're just making a fuss about it cause you are butthurt you didn't make Knight" is neither professional nor constructive.

ren wrote: We're not in the abrahamic forum but I believe God's unlimited might does not require forgiveness, but instead requires worship from those he created, and may get angry at those who interfere with his plan and send them to hell until the end of times and beyond.

I'm not a specialist in 'unlimited might' as I do not believe it exists, and if it did, I would believe it to be the Force.

Why does his might not require forgiveness for his actions? Do you actually believe that unlimited power is an automatic means to require worship? How do you judge the moral character of such a being? Might makes right in this case? No matter what moral atrocity they may undertake it makes it moral simply because he has the power? Well that's simply bullshit. If such a God existed and even if I was helpless against his power I would still resist him and I would know that I was of better character than he even while I burned in hell.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: wisdom is not something taught and it cannot be given to another. This simple implication that those of rank automatically have this power is what I challenge. All the meditation and lessons in the world will not impart this wisdom either. This very idea that you follow a specific process in the IP and AP under a "mentor" and then earn a badge from others that self appointed themselves as actually worthy of bestowing this honor is what I challenge. These individuals claim to be the gatekeepers of this wisdom by the very fact that they have bestowed upon themselves these high ranks and then require others to go through them to attain similar. So I ask you, why is a mentor required if this is not the case? Its one thing to learn from another because you find yourselves connected in some way, its quite another to be forced to build such an association artificially just so you can advance. That is why they are gatekeepers.

So, I think this is an example of what irritates people when you respond to them. Here, you have misrepresented what has been said and once again over-simplified it and re-modeled it into something for you to argue against... except what you're arguing against is something that has not been said - you reformed it into something for you to argue against in order to continue what you're doing. The idea that wisdom is taught was never brought up here. Again, that is your own thoughts, assuming that people think so because of an apparent misunderstanding of how things work here. I did attempt to give my own understanding of it, but what you've responded with begs that most of it didn't land? (Maybe this is what Br John was hinting at in his response, because I see people's attempts to explain things to you not land in this same way a bit frequently).

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: If it is the mission of a knight to teach, I must ask, why have you not acquiesced to my earlier request? Is it because you don't like me? Thus you feel I'm not worthy of your teaching and so you withhold that teaching? I asked directly, you declined to provide answers through your silence on the matter. I'm not saying you should be required to provide anything, however don't make the claim that you have knowledge and then deny that knowledge to those you made the claim to. It only serves to make you look weak.

I asked you what I did because I knew you had the answer already, seeing as how it would be according to your own stance. But I noticed that you refused to directly answer it (which is okay, you didn't really have to answer it. I suppose it was somewhat rhetorical there) because you would have to admit, in front of everyone here, a direct contradiction in your line of logic that you seem to stick to quite narrow-mindedly. Has nothing to do with if I like you or not (I'm pretty neutral about you to be honest). It just is what it is. You use logic in your debates that you don't actually represent yourself, thus showing that you might have an intellectual understanding of what you're saying, but you haven't actually come to personally understand it or implement it, which is the entire point of what apprenticeships mean to bring about. Otherwise we would probably have a lot more knights going around, like you do, to "challenge" everyone with liberal elitist logic in every discussion "because they know better" (which is another reason I think people get irritated with you when you shoehorn yourself into discussions doing that).

Kyrin Wyldestar wrote: I understand these things get frequently discussed. I believe they definitely should be as a continual reminder to others as to the most valid pursuit of their journeys. In the end it is not the knowledge we seek. That is only a precursor to the true goal. we want the ability to apply that knowledge through wisdom. That only comes by combining it with experience, not a shiny badge. Badges do not make one great, the ability to act wisely does. Its good to keep in mind that we are each responsible for our own lives in every aspect and to be careful to never allow that responsibility to fall to another. That creates victim hood. We each must walk into any Heroes Journey with eyes wide open, carefully selecting who we choose to associate with, always being wary of false gods behind the scenes spreading sour grapes of un-knightly wrath.

I absolutely agree with the point I see you're getting at here. I think I would find myself agreeing more fully, however, if you didn't approach these points, again, with shoehorned, oversimplified and misrepresented ideas and hasty assumptions with an agenda to "challenge the council" or whoever else I find you like to make bold claims about. It weakens your stance and it hinders the ability of your points to get through to people.

Proteus wrote: So, I think this is an example of what irritates people when you respond to them. Here, you have misrepresented what has been said and once again over-simplified it and re-modeled it into something for you to argue against... except what you're arguing against is something that has not been said - you reformed it into something for you to argue against in order to continue what you're doing. The idea that wisdom is taught was never brought up here. Again, that is your own thoughts, assuming that people think so because of an apparent misunderstanding of how things work here. I did attempt to give my own understanding of it, but what you've responded with begs that most of it didn't land? (Maybe this is what Br John was hinting at in his response, because I see people's attempts to explain things to you not land in this same way a bit frequently).

Your exact words were:

Proteus wrote: They {knights and clergy} are those who expose others to what knowledge and wisdom there already is, but through a system of guidance of helping others digest it, because this kind of knowledge and wisdom is usually not a simple cut-and-dry kind of thing to integrate on one's own.

So I must ask, how does one expose another to wisdom? Or through a system of guidance, help them integrate it into their lives? Wisdom is one of the most complex things we can ever acquire - the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment. It is the soundness of our actions, not something that can be exposed to us. In this regard I don’t even know what you mean by “this kind of wisdom”. Are there even different kinds and if so what kind are you referring to? And even more to the point, by what right do you claim the ability to impart such things to others while those of lesser rank lack this ability?

This is of course a rhetorical question. It is not meant to be answered but stand as a reminder to never look to a single source for any such thing in our lives. That any and all opportunities are rife with these abilities and all individuals possess this potential and capacity. Mentorship is something earned, not automatically imparted by a self-awarded badge. It’s a caution to not chase those badges and never elevate even the mentors in our lives to a station they do not deserve. Instead chase life, and hold yourself in the most sacred of regard no matter the victory achieved or defeat suffered.

Proteus wrote: I asked you what I did because I knew you had the answer already, seeing as how it would be according to your own stance. But I noticed that you refused to directly answer it (which is okay, you didn't really have to answer it. I suppose it was somewhat rhetorical there) because you would have to admit, in front of everyone here, a direct contradiction in your line of logic that you seem to stick to quite narrow-mindedly.

This is a bold claim to be sure. You know my mind now? You know I have the answer to this question so you make the assumption, even in the face of my direct question, that I am being purposely dense just so I do not have to admit an inconsistency? My only reply to this can be that just because you lack the ability to understand my logic does not make it invalid. If you are unwilling to actually point out such an inconsistency then we seem to be at an impasse here.

Proteus wrote: I absolutely agree with the point I see you're getting at here. I think I would find myself agreeing more fully, however, if you didn't approach these points, again, with shoehorned, oversimplified and misrepresented ideas and hasty assumptions with an agenda to "challenge the council" or whoever else I find you like to make bold claims about. It weakens your stance and it hinders the ability of your points to get through to people.

An agenda to “challenge the council” has never been mentioned here. I have challenged no one to nothing save for the membership of this place to be wary and protective of their own journeys in whom they chose to share such things with. To never make assumptions and to always research everything they are not only told but experience. Never take for granted and always be a critical thinker. I can think of no sounder advice. How this equates to your comments above I cannot fathom.

This is of course a rhetorical question. It is not meant to be answered but stand as a reminder to never look to a single source for any such thing in our lives. That any and all opportunities are rife with these abilities and all individuals possess this potential and capacity. Mentorship is something earned, not automatically imparted by a self-awarded badge. It’s a caution to not chase those badges and never elevate even the mentors in our lives to a station they do not deserve. Instead chase life, and hold yourself in the most sacred of regard no matter the victory achieved or defeat suffered.

If there is something to say you are consistent about it is doing exactly what I described in my last response in order to continue a redundant horse beating - misrepresenting and oversimplifying what I've said into a false assumption. My explanation about exposing knowledge does not equate with teaching anything... It has seemed to me for the majority of the time I've been here that everyone else here seems to have already figured this out, so I'm not sure why you are the one person (or of a few people at least?) who have not somehow. And the fact that its decided to be rhetorical doesn't help your response much either.

This is a bold claim to be sure. You know my mind now? You know I have the answer to this question so you make the assumption, even in the face of my direct question, that I am being purposely dense just so I do not have to admit an inconsistency? My only reply to this can be that just because you lack the ability to understand my logic does not make it invalid. If you are unwilling to actually point out such an inconsistency then we seem to be at an impasse here.

Nobody needs to know your mind in order to see you demonstrate being the very thing you frequently preach against in every discussion that you force your statements about the temple in. I don't even need to give examples. You're not going to pay attention to the point of those examples, instead you are simply going to try to invalidate what examples are given to give you a space to repeat your process of misrepresentation, over-simplification, and falsely assuming to continue painting your own idea of a corrupt temple to preach against (the very narrow agenda of this thread). It's pointless because your approach consistently paints almost every response from you as this being, ultimately the only reason why you're still here responding to discussions in the first place. Whether or not you will agree to that being true, the wide-agreed upon impression still exists.

Well Proteus, I'm quite happy to be consistent in exposing the flaws in your assertions. And that's all they really are, assertions. You yourself even admit you don't even need to give examples, that these things you freely state are obvious. Another common diversionary tactic. I did not set out in this thread to challenge anything except a commonly manifested component of human nature. I find it the height of irony that you have proceeded as you have in this discussion as one of the greatest defenders against what I said by continuing to attack my personal nature and not the topic of discussion. You continue to refuse to answer even my simplest questions and instead use inflationary terms when it comes to discussions I engage in and my reasons for even being here. Its pretty obvious you operate from a position of extreme elitist cognitive bias in your latest assertion that the nature of this place is plainly obvious to all but me. And yet you provide no evidence while I have provided quite bit. In fact the very second post of this thread is proof enough of corruption. I see no need to engage your antics further if you are unwilling to engage in an equal manner.

I don't recall disagreeing with any of the various flaws you have pointed out regarding the temple in general. So proof of whatever doesn't really concern what I've been on about. Your approach toward doing that is what I wanted to point out because you've kinda been the pot calling the kettle black. And of course you see me as elitest, I have made statements regarding you that you 1. Don't agree with and 2. Point out personal hypocrisy in your involvement here. All I'm saying is that whistle blowing about the something that involves things that you yourself are doing just by your own whistle blowing is in and of itself invalidating your place to do so. (The original irony of the thread). But you are pretty correct in a lot of the flaws you've pointed out. That stuff is old news though.

Hi. I apologize upfront for posting in this thread without having read the 100 entries that were added since I last caught up with it two weeks ago on page 5. I am sure it would very likely be a massive waste of time and I have so little of it these days.

Just wanted to share with you that there is a place where there is Peace, Knowledge, Serenity, Harmony and the Force. This place is everywhere, outside of us, around us, and inside us. We can find and experience it in us. It is always there.

It might not look very popular, though, this place. For the simple reason that many can't see it. As they are busy proofing they are academic. Or popular. Or both. Or whatever.

Spotting or celebrating such a place might even be academic. but it doesn't have to be. At least not in the way how many academics might see it.

Sometimes it makes sense to break the cycle, and to acknowledge that the solution might not be directly related to the problem. If it does not work, do something different. If it works, don't fix it.

So if you feel that you can't find such a place in this discussion, try and go outside. Get some fresh air. And think about how you could live your life, or about the IP, the code and doctrine, whatever. Or if there are any substantial and wise thoughts you are having, you could also write them your journal.

In case some find this post weird, out of context, unrelated, or just provocative, I'm sorry. It's just that I am trying to study here about the Force and can't stand the noise. And that might, somehow, even be a bit academic.

By the way if one really wants to get all academic about rank, one could also decide to spend a few hours on getting lost in another kind of reasoning: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Rank.html

More of that stuff might even get you some popularity elsewhere as well. And there is a lifetime to spend on it, as one can see also: Bundle Rank, Graph Rank, Group Rank, Lie Algebra Rank, Matrix Rank, Ordinal Number, Quadratic Form Rank, Rank-Nullity Theorem, Rank Order Correlation Coefficient, Sequence Rank, Statistical Rank, Tensor Rank

But beware, it might be a trap. On the other hand, for some it might be a whole life. It will even give them some popularity in interested circles (here: of academic mathematicians). For others, it might well be a waste of time.

Excuse the poetry.

Ambert.
---
Currently travelling, meditating on the Creed. Might be back very soon.

Ambert The Traveller wrote: Hi. I apologize upfront for posting in this thread without having read the 100 entries that were added since I last caught up with it two weeks ago on page 5. I am sure it would very likely be a massive waste of time and I have so little of it these days.

Well by all means let me be the first to dis-invite you to post further in this thread that is such a waste of your precious and valuable time. I have no idea how you can give advice on a thread you have no time or inclination to even read so instead I suggest you travel to this place of infinite peace you speak of and let the rest of us have our conversations in as much peace.

Ambert The Traveller wrote: Hi. I apologize upfront for posting in this thread without having read the 100 entries that were added since I last caught up with it two weeks ago on page 5. I am sure it would very likely be a massive waste of time and I have so little of it these days.

What you probably meant: sorry if I missed something in this massive thread.
What it sounds like: I consider your arguments and opinions unimportant, so let me give MY advice.

Ambert The Traveller wrote: Just wanted to share with you that there is a place where there is Peace, Knowledge, Serenity, Harmony and the Force. This place is everywhere, outside of us, around us, and inside us. We can find and experience it in us. It is always there.

It might not look very popular, though, this place. For the simple reason that many can't see it. As they are busy proofing they are academic. Or popular. Or both. Or whatever.

Spotting or celebrating such a place might even be academic. but it doesn't have to be. At least not in the way how many academics might see it.

Sometimes it makes sense to break the cycle, and to acknowledge that the solution might not be directly related to the problem. If it does not work, do something different. If it works, don't fix it.

So if you feel that you can't find such a place in this discussion, try and go outside. Get some fresh air. And think about how you could live your life, or about the IP, the code and doctrine, whatever. Or if there are any substantial and wise thoughts you are having, you could also write them your journal.

In case some find this post weird, out of context, unrelated, or just provocative, I'm sorry. It's just that I am trying to study here about the Force and can't stand the noise. And that might, somehow, even be a bit academic.

By the way if one really wants to get all academic about rank, one could also decide to spend a few hours on getting lost in another kind of reasoning: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Rank.html

More of that stuff might even get you some popularity elsewhere as well. And there is a lifetime to spend on it, as one can see also: Bundle Rank, Graph Rank, Group Rank, Lie Algebra Rank, Matrix Rank, Ordinal Number, Quadratic Form Rank, Rank-Nullity Theorem, Rank Order Correlation Coefficient, Sequence Rank, Statistical Rank, Tensor Rank

But beware, it might be a trap. On the other hand, for some it might be a whole life. It will even give them some popularity in interested circles (here: of academic mathematicians). For others, it might well be a waste of time.

What you probably meant: life is so full of wonder, if you get lost in mindless details you might miss out on it.
What it sounds like: stop talking about this useless stuff and go do something important!

Ambert The Traveller wrote: Excuse the poetry.

What you probably meant: Just my two cents.
What it sounds like: There. I just solved your problems with my wisdom. Not the thread you are looking for, move along.

LMAO... enjoying that popcorn Manu?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: LMAO... enjoying that popcorn Manu?

Always.

The main benefit of rank in a place with a system like this is to develop a platform for shaping shared growth rather then random shared interaction. Not to suggest one is better then then the other, but the former allows like minded folk to work some contextual depth rather then breadth.
Unfortunately like any attempts at building cooperative structures they are inherently vulnerable to abuse from both ends, being guru syndrome from above and trolling from below. Both are signs of self doubt IMO, because the former must pretend they are something they are not to have others counter their unwelcome truth (not being a guru) and the later feels out of the loop, dis-empowered and ignorant of things outside their control.
I think it's all just part of growing up ie learning to read the state of a process for what it is and not identifying oneself or others by participation in it. Anyway, that is why its about academics not not popularity... even though it can be seen like that for those in the later group, and in theory a platform for abuse from those in the former. So it's occurrence seems more about the individual doing it then the system that enables it IMO.

To take a step back here for a second (or one post at least) what this discussion seems to be about, at its core, is hierarchy.

Is hierarchy a good thing? On what metrics should people be moved, or move themselves, up (or down) the hierarchy?

To my mind, hierarchy is neither intrinsically good or bad. In our case it can be good if it allows those who dedicate time and study to develop competence in ‘living the doctrine’ to pass that on to others. That competence will take the form of some academic knowledge, some wisdom, but most of all - a demonstrated ability to live and embody the doctrine.

It’s just my hunch - but ‘popularity’ here - is closely correlated with an individual’s ability to embody the doctrine, and their dedication. This seems to apply irrespective of whether one’s rank is Guest or Grand Master.

Clearly hierarchy can be bad if it is based on anything other than competence with dedication. Time, effort alone, desire, power, nepotism, even just academics (the list is long) are poor metrics upon which to base a even a shallow hierarchy like the one we have here at TOTJO. They would ultimately lead to corruption.

All hierarchies are prone to corruption - and we, no doubt, have some here. There are different ways to address this. Through revolution, the hierarchy can be torn down from the ‘bottom’ up - but that almost never ends well. It often ends disastrously. Alternatively, competent, dedicated people can make their way up the hierarchy and collectively be the change they wish to see.

Another intractable issue is that even hierarchies that are beneficial for the collective are instrinsically unfair, on an individual basis. Competence and dedication are not equally distributed. Some will find it relatively easy to climb the hierarchy, others will find it nigh on impossible. There is no shying away from this.

One of the mercies of modern times is that there are a near infinite number of hierarchies available, appealing to the near infinite range of competencies that different individuals express.

We all have to ask ourselves:
why this hierarchy?
Are we suited to it?
Does that matter?
Can we change ourselves to match the competencies this hierarchy selects for?
Can we change the hierarchy, and the competencies it selects for?

The hierarchy will always be resistant to change - so, often, the question becomes - can we develop the competencies the hierarchy selects for? Do we want to?

Often people don’t want to change - so they go off and start their own groups with new hierarchies. Other, extremely competent people (as Kyrin pointed-out in the OP) don’t bother with the hierarchy at all.

The meltdowns, rage quitting, self-imposed demotions etc are the different ways that people remove themselves from the hierarchy - often when the hierarchy doesn’t match their expectations. Often, that happens because people are shocked by the flaws that all hierarchies suffer from.

The true Jedi here (whatever that means) are a diverse group spread across the hierarchy. Some content where they are, some moving in one direction or other, some removing themselves from it altogether.

It may be that in our hierarchy here - dedication to the Temple - counts for more than competence. That’s probably fairer than basing it on competence (I suspect we have more control over our dedication than our competence) but it will mean that competence is distributed across the ranks, and will be less likely to accumulate at the top. Whilst potentially fairer, it will make the top of the hierarchy susceptible, and potentially threatened by, competence residing lower down.

This strikes me as quite normal - and on my good days, nothing to get too upset about! One thing is for sure though - if one removes oneself from the hierarchy, one shouldn’t be surprised if the hierarchy stops listening!

Loudzoo wrote: I suspect we have more control over our dedication than our competence

Maybe it can be argued that one can somehow somewhat manipulate how dedicated one gets to feel towards something. I don't recall ever getting to control that nor hearing of anyone who can, but much to learn do I still have, certainly. On the other hand, competence is a matter of skill. It is something I'd think one can learn, hoan, and train. Now this is not to say that a place claiming to be one of learning and training would actually help anyone get more competent at anything, though there were days where I'd have been happy to think of it as doing so. I take it, then, you suspect it isn't?

if one removes oneself from the hierarchy, one shouldn’t be surprised if the hierarchy stops listening!

And those who do not vote shouldn't expect their sovereigns to respect their concerns either, one might think. Well, maybe. Some might find this tyrannical, I don't feel too strongly about it. Since it is not like "the hierarchy" really ever started listening to begin with, I couldn't help but be surprised if it stopped, no matter my involvement.

Adder wrote: . Anyway, that is why its about academics not not popularity...

Only those seen as worthy, regardless of academics, are chosen for Knight of the temple. But anyone can define their path as a Jedi and they can be a member of the temple though right? Wrong, There are Jedi here right now that are in good standing and yet being denied membership just because they are not well liked. Anytime personality and character are evaluated as a necessary component of inclusion that is a popularity contest that academics have nothing to do with.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote: . Anyway, that is why its about academics not not popularity...

Only those seen as worthy, regardless of academics, are chosen for Knight of the temple. But anyone can define their path as a Jedi and they can be a member of the temple though right? Wrong, There are Jedi here right now that are in good standing and yet being denied membership just because they are not well liked. Anytime personality and character are evaluated as a necessary component of inclusion that is a popularity contest that academics have nothing to do with.

I understand were you're coming from and yet, if we're talking about leadership positions, then a person's character and likability are important (these things can be different from popularity though). Leaders represent the organization to the public. There are people on this site I would not feel comfortable with going on TV and saying they're Jedi Knights. It's just like how I wish society would screen people a little more before giving them badges and more so before making them police chiefs. And then there's always the chance that the wrong person gets into a position (if all positions are based on something they excel in) and brings in a bunch of their crony friends who may all excel in academics but are like mini Steve Bannons. A person can get in a position and divisive and brash and become a public relations nightmare.

It's one thing to know something. It's another thing to be that thing. Someone can know all there is to know about Jediism but does that automatically make them a Jedi? What if I study everything there is to know about Football. Does that qualify me to join the NFL? What if a person knows everything about singing and dancing. They've studied every move but have no rhythm. Are they qualified to be the next American Idol? What if there's a book work who has studied everything there is to know about every single religion but they have no experience actually dealing with people. Are they qualified to be a pastor? If a man has testicles does it qualify him to be a father or a husband? In virtually every sector it takes more than just having knowledge to lead. Every selection isn't going to be perfect and I'm sure part of any caution the council has learned to exercise is from choosing people who didn't fit and who may have misrepresented the substance and image of the organization. My point is that knowing a thing isn't the same as being the thing and even if the organization doesn't micro manage who can say "I'm a Jedi" they don't have to support each claim or give it a platform.